By The recession and expenses scandal have knocked Labour for six. The consequence has been the resurgence of a left wing agenda for Labour, a feeling that ‘going left’ would mean popularity with the electorate shooting up. But what would a retirement to old Labour values mean for the electorate? More welfare dependency, more concessions to the European Union, a higher tax on the rich, a higher business rate and proportional representation resulting in hung parliament after hung parliament.
Contrary to those who say that going left is the answer, it is the idealism entrenched in left wing politics that is actually inflicting the most damage. Peter Mandelson is correct that the recession and subsequent events should not weaken Labour’s position as the party of the free market and enterprise; the Tories with a heart.
Conference needs to be about Labour clunking down its fist and showing it can appeal beyond academics and idealists.
Europe is central to this and Labour needs to move away from the pretence that if you are against European integration you are a bigoted little Englander. The paradox of the European Union is that many in the Labour movement now see it as a means to an end. For example, on recent EU election material it was common to read that Labour had secured rights for agency workers via the EU; that Britain had signed the Social Chapter. All good stuff, but why can’t we deliver such policy in Parliament instead of paying MEPs to lobby for it.
The European Union is a social market model that benefits nobody in Britain, and alienates vast numbers of the electorate who at the last European elections had no idea what their MEP even did. A federal Europe is more complex than being a xenophobe if you’re against it and a worldly progressive if you’re for it. So Labour should honour its manifesto and hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
Conference could be about patching up relations with the electorate. The fulcrum of conference should be a mature debate on Europe, a radical welfare shake up, a commitment to paying soldiers in Afghanistan full compensation, a scrapping of the totemic 50% tax rate and an honest assessment of future cuts.
Conference should also include an assessment of the achievements, a notification of the mistakes and policy ideas to rectify them. Pragmatism over idealism, backed up by clear and correct action taken during the early days of the recession would see Labour as something of a united machine, committed more to the free market roots that stood parallel to the glory years than the wistful talk of bashing the rich that could see us put into oblivion.
Any lingering ideas about ID cards should be put to bed over the summer, along with a concise defence of the minimum wage and reminder to the electorate that the Conservatives were against the idea in 1999 and elements of the party remain committed to an opt out as a means to helping the recession - typically bogus Tory policy, as what will aid recovery will be a kick-start in lending, not a punitive cut against workers.
The welfare state also needs to be picked up over the summer. There is nothing progressive about keeping people on benefits and in a cycle of unemployment. James Purnell’s welfare proposals should be reignited and crystallised. At a time of fiscal panic it would make sense to address the huge tax burden of paying people not to work.
Finally it would be a bold and appealing move to discuss scrapping the probation service and seeing judges given much more scope for tougher sentencing. It would be ok to champion a liberal approach to justice if it had been untried. But after many years of rehabilitation and slaps on the wrist, it is time for Labour to rethink its law and order handbook.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Been away. Sorry for late reply.
Basically right.
Tories are only electable now because,
Portillo,
Redwood,
Lamont,
Mawhinney,
Mellor,
Hamilton & co are gone or so low profile as to be no longer noticeable
Blair and Prescott will definitely not be around in the next parliament. Realisticly the others listed, at least, have to go before we'll be trusted again.
Bit unfair on Harriet though, but she did want to be deputy to the worst Prime Minister since Lord North (tax on tea imported into the colonies).
I don't believe that this exodus of supporters is due to Labour's core voters fretting about some hypothetical "lurch" to the left by the Party; in fact I suspect that the opposite is probably true as far as they are concerned. The bald fact is that even were the Labour Party to lurch light-years to the left of its current political position, it would still remain far to right of the centre ground it once occupied so successfully and attractively. The Labour Party's doom has been sealed not by its socialist roots or hidden passions for left-wing political policies but by it's continuous drift to the right, unashamed betrayal of and appalling nonchalance displayed toward the core voters that stood by the Party through thick and thin, year in and year out, decade in and decade out. The Party took these people for granted and it did so at its peril. Labour abandoned its core vote a long time ago and now has been abandoned by those selfsame people in return, most of whom seem to have decided to demonstrate their distaste by turning their backs on the ballot box and absenting themselves from the political process altogether.
The idea that the Party can only win and prosper by abandoning everything it once stood for historically, as well as the people it was originally created to help and elevate, is disingenuous and dishonourable.
As such the Party fully deserves everything that is going to happen to it.
Labour have had twelve years and utterly failed. I will hold my nose and vote Tory just to see this incompetent government of self-serving, millionaire-seducing sycophants kicked out. I am not a Tory.
A vision of The Labour Party anamorphosed into a pack of roguish Tories... with a heart... whatever that means. What a poverty of political nous, original policy, altruistic ambition and humanistic morality is exhibited in the aforementioned sentence; abject, amoral, dismal, depressing but very, very Mandelsonian.
Truly awful.
@PaulNUK The problem is the nimbys stalling the planning apps for wind turbine farms, highlighted so well in @ageofstupid
So according to the great green Prescott, anyone that doesn't agree with him is stupid?
And there is one next to one of his many houses? No? Oh there's a suprise.
I've seen some great debate on here about wind farms but if this is the level of debate the Labour party really want, it won't matter if it lurches left or right because it will be doing it on it's own for another 15 years.
The public face of the Labour party:
Blair
Brown
Mandy
Harman
Prescott
Blears
Smith
You need to get shot of them and get in people that actually give a ****!! Please!!
What part of the phrase "%age of gross revenues" do you not understand?
Mind you, I think a "use it or lose it" provision might be useful to deter patent trolling.
And the final nail in the coffin.
Tony Blair.
Most definitely wrong.
Wave goodbye to most large companies locating in the UK then.
Potty idea.
If a company develops a product of it's own work that is not depriving anyone of anything but benfiting all through advancement. This system is anti-capitalist and will fall the same way as all other anti-capitalist system have.
Labour had a right wing before New Labour, and will have one afterwards.
Generally article is confused. Confused association with what New Labour has inadvertently 'achieved', as 'Old' Labour values to be avoided. i.e. benefit dependancy
Rejecting the New Labour strategic approach of only being interested in the views of the readers of the most right wing papers i.e. Mail/Express, is only a drift to the centre. Even the Tories now appear Left wing than Labour on quite a few issues.
Also, like the financial wizs who came up with the maths for the Hedge funds, a grasp of history before 1979 would be useful in avoiding repeating the mistakes of those earlier times.
We are going through a period of severe economic dislocation not seen since the first half of the twentieth century. This actually opens up the possibility of passionate/extreme political views coming to prominence in the same way as they did in the decade following the Wall Street crash.
To blithely assume we should carry on as before is an invitation to the likes of the BNP to keep pushing at the gates, because 'our' current message clearly doesn't appeal to the vast majority of the electorate. Differentiating between the messenger/message is a matter or personal judgement. I'd say both are at fault currently.
When will somebody in the New Labour clicque grasp that the Tories aren't popular in themselves, but because they aren't this deeply unpopular government? Throwing mud doesn't work, because they still won't be this government as a result.
Ignoring the causes of the unpopularity and ploughing on regardless is merely hubristic.
Clearly there are Labour members, hopefully the majority, who feel uncomfortable about this. Labelling anybody who voices this as automatically left wing is merely ducking the issue.
It's bad enough trying to smear the opposition, but when smearing your own party members seems an option, something has gone badly wrong.
Instead push for a real discussion of policies and see what actually people want/accept.
But the privilege of the exclusive rights which constitute IP - such as copyright and patents - should IMHO be subject to a levy, probably a %age of gross revenues.
It's not difficult to apply such a levy to gross software revenues, music, video, drug patents etc is it?
And if someone prefers not to charge, then a %age of nothing is nothing.
The Labout Party that was destroyed by the New Labour cabal in 1994 was generally Eurosceptic. It was the eurofanatics of New Labour that endorced the corporate capitalist european state and now signed away our rights in the Treaty of Lisbon.
It has been the debt funded, capitalist supporting policies of New Labour that have brought this country to its knees.
If anything it's the other way around.
That's purely a technical issue. Monetising property is not difficult.
You are receiving a continuing benefit from your privilege: why should you not be taxed on this transfer of wealth to you from other taxpayers as it accrues?
"Further on a side note to your plans, I want to fully own my own property and land and not be in "partnership" with anyone. I suspect most middle clasas property owners feel exactly the same way."
In that case, firstly, you'll need to think of an alternative to freehold title, because you own nothing other than a fee simple title at Her Majesty's Pleasure.
Secondly, you'd probably also better come up with an alternative to mortgage loans as well, because for as long as you owe any money, you are subject to losing your home if you miss a payment or two.
Also, you'd better not dabble in any funds because all institutionally held securities are also held by a custodian.
What I am pointing out is an alternative to conventional taxation, tenure and financing.
But it's not a matter of either/or, Guy: it's "both/and". Those interested in joining this complementary mechanism will join, and those who are not, will not. It's a free world.
If you want to throw money away on conventional financing then that's up to you.
There were enough genuine problems with Old Labour without us having to manufacture new ones.
And how on earth do you decide what IP is or isnt and how do you tax it?
Again IP does not generate a set rate of revenue, so how can you decide what the tax payment should be?
Your policy is one giant redistributive scheme trying to do something the public would never support through general taxation.
Further on a side note to your plans, I want to fully own my own property and land and not be in "partnership" with anyone. I suspect most middle clasas property owners feel exactly the same way.
Good grief, if that's all it means to be Labour at the moment, then we're in pretty bad shape.
There is no fairer tax IMHO than a tax on the unearned income from the privilege of exclusive use of location.
An entire industry exists to minimise taxes on corporate profits and individual incomes. Only little people pay income tax, Peter, and corporate taxes are a bad joke.
Whereas there's no hiding from a tax on land rental values.
I like some of the points you make, mainly those in the following paragraph:
Conference could be about patching up relations with the electorate. The fulcrum of conference should be a mature debate on Europe, a radical welfare shake up, a commitment to paying soldiers in Afghanistan full compensation, a scrapping of the totemic 50% tax rate and an honest assessment of future cuts.
- Radical change *is* needed to make the welfare system sustainable, as well as effective;
- The taxation system needs a complete overhaul and needs to be vastly simplified;
- Our defence commitments need to be in line with our resources: rather than being stretched to the limit. This means backing out of some of our current commitments, not spending more.
- An honest assessment about future funding needs and spending cuts is needed; together with *realistic* plans to reduce public spending to sustainable levels.
You don't need an ID card because you have your fingers and iris with you anyway. If someone has the tools to check that the card is yours then they will have the tools to checked you directly against the central database.
The central database is the governments real purpose - details of everyone unambiguously held for any purpose they introduce (by statutory instrument, so no need for any debates).
Peoples eyes used to automatically track them in the street - just like car number plates being automatically recognised for congestion charging etc.
Which ministers got together to plot against Gordon? He'll know in a trice.
But it is a bit moot now - now that labour are building a database of every child (on a bogus 'protection' ticket), they just have to wait, as the kids get older it and it will become a defacto database of every adult...
Why not, you should be, the government are there for our benefit, not the other way round. This govewrnment has already stripped us of many of our rights, why do you want to lose more?
First, while I think 'New' Labour, quite apart from no longer being 'new' is effectively dead. The options on what follows are far wider than sticking with the same or hurtling towards the Left
Second, Labour is a pro-European party. I expect Lisbon to be signed by the next election and I think once signed, it will cease to be an issue. There may be questions of how we continue our relationship with Europe but it should be constructive and start from the position that we are in Europe and staying there - which everyone knows is the case anyway
Third, Purnell's welfare reforms were and remain absolutely useless for a period of recession. It is a fact that people who have been on benefits for a long time are not going to find work when others in work are losing their jobs. Get real.
Fourth, as there are more people in prison than in any other European country, one can hardly look at recent policy as 'liberal'. Anything but (although the law and order lobby often appear to me to be secretly longing for Sharia law!)
Fifth, it is the free market which caused the recent problems. The 50% tax rate should remain.
Sixth, the first set of cuts must be defence, as we simply cannot continue to act as America's baby policeman of the world. No more intervention unless it is of DIRECT concern to us, and no more contribution above the minimum expected of us in a UN action. Trident must be cancelled immediately.
Seventh, and I think finally - yes, ID cards should be put to bed, as they are not a centrally important piece of expenditure. I'm not against them in principle, incidentally, but I think they need to be Europe wide to have any use in terms of their stated aim.
Can't have people wanting power in westminster rather then the EU.
Can't have people admitting that the Lisbon treaty is the constitution document.
Can't have people telling the truth...
I don't think I got a response when I asked one of the same question here the other day 'why do we need the EU to provide social legislation?'
Westminster could have done it at the drop of a hat if it was wanted. Was it wanted? if so what is westminster playing at (and what are we paying them for)? if not then why are we accepting it being imposed? either way the EU has it wrong...
To what end? To get him in trouble for not being left enough???
(Mandelson would have used more adjectives I reckon.)
Are we really supposed to take any of this seriously?
I'm all for a little silliness but this is pushing the envelope a tad too far.
As for why we are campaigning for the members of the PLP who have let us down - I'm sure many would say they ask themselves the same question. Others have given up, or are close to giving up, but it's been interesting on LL recently that people are now openly debating everything they believe in, and what Labour might stand for in the future. I think you raise an interesting point re the left/grassroots. Personally I don't think the old grassroots is defined by the militant unions/left any more - if it it ever was, really. Among ordinary people who had traditonally voted Labour there are basic ideas about, for example, when the state should/shouldn't intervene in people's lives that make perfect sense. All they need is to be listened to. Sadly, too many people at senior level prefer to hang out with think tanks.
I think there is a discussion to be had about the difference between the left of the Conservative party and the right of the Labour Party, and this has teased that out a bit.
The constitution writers,EU politicians and emminent lawyers all asaid the same, thete is no material difference between Lisgon and the Constitution.
Another perfect reason why the public shouldn't trust Labour with anything.
With a sensible personal allowance, you could live on a smallish plot tax free - so ability to pay is covered.
A big sticker on the front saying "This is a constitution" ?
And what makes a 'treaty'? and what about a 'constitutional treaty'?
You can change the label but everyone knows its the same document.
And Brown is as big a liar as Blair...
It was good to have money left in my pocket so I could choose what to do with it.
It was good that my money was not being taken from me and used to subsidise failed and poor (nationalised) businesses without my consent.
What of the people who lost their jobs? Good to get the spongers off my back. And for them to be available for real productive work. But no malice, they were probably only doing what most people would have done in the same position.
Disagree with the policy by all means but don't disagree with the facts.
Taxation must be related to ability to pay, not a nominative value that can be perverted or abused by politicians.
I see no problem with banded income tax ranging from 10 to 40% with sensible breaks e.g 10% on the first £10k over the tax allowance, 20% on £10 to £30K etc as this benefits the lower income brackets, relatively, more in real terms. Council tax should be done away with and replaced by LIT on similar bands to income tax. We already have a carbon tax - its called fuel duty - and a tax on intellectual property (Vat, company tax, etc.)
Thats funny - say it enough times and you may convince yourself that it means what you want it to.
It can only be to convince yourself, because everyone knows the truth.
Why is that a paradox?
Also, as other posters have said, Old Labour was not pro-EU/EEC/Whatever.
Nor was it pro-benefits dependency - how could it be if it was dominated by the unions? They wanted workers paying subs.
As for "Tories with a heart" - words fail me. That's the left of the Conservative Party, the wets. Labour has to be something else if it has a reason to exist beyond representing the unions - which by the way is where it still gets a good deal of its funding from. I'd like to hear the conversation in which you explain to them the Tories with a heart plan.
I think we in the Labour Party understand the problem far better than any Tory ever can. It took a global crises to bring over two million unemployed, you lot did it without any international crises and broke through the three million mark. When you made those people unemployed back in the 80's and 90's did you get a kick out of condemning them? When you saw them in a weak spot did you get a buzz from putting them down when you knew they were in a vulnerable state. Many Tories did as I recall. There was never any intention to help from your party Mark, that is why even when Labour is more unpopular than it has been in two decades the Tories still are not gaining any substantial votes. That is quite an achievement in opposition. Especially after twelve years.
I am, historically, a Tory voter but often with a heavy heart. I enjoy reading the comments and articles on here some of which i agree with and others which I profoundly don't but what leaps out to me is the disparity between the hard working, concientous and public spirited grass roots of labour and the ministers that do their bidding.
I'm sure ministers and a lot of back benchers would warm to Oliver's comments (which I believe may be revealed as a wind up at some point) but none, and I mean none of the grassroots labour contributors will.
I feel genuinely sorry for labour activists, the majority want to help the poor, help the community and make the country a better place and I agree wholeheartedly with their sentiments, however, the people you are campaigning for and who are in a position to make your wishes a reality simply don't feel the same as you which begs the question of why are still campaigning for them?
For example, the 10p tax rate, are we seriously to believe that a man who has been chancellor for ten years did not realise the implications of this? Of course he did, but he chose to buy some positive headlines at on cutting the basic rate at the expense of the low paid and, presumably, hoped no one would notice - which they didn't until it was about to be implemented.
If Labour does "lurch to the left" it will move back towards the beliefs of its grassroots support, if not you should seriously consider breaking away to form a new party as the parliamentory arm of your party is not on the same wavelength as the activists and you are only encouraging the returning of MP's and a government who have an entirely different agenda to you.
eg a land value tax, a carbon tax, a tax on intellectual property, and a tax on limited liability.
All of them simple, unavoidable, and collected at the payment clearing level.
And I don't recall a referendum ever being promised on the Lisbon TREATY - on the proposed Constitution maybe, but not on a treaty.
Some of your points I agree with, but on Europe, I'm afraid to say, I think you're wrong, and completely at odds with New Labour thinking.
It is a shame that so many labour supporters are trying to keep up the big lie that every thing is hunky dory and what isn't needs to be pushed to the left.
Actually it isn't that much of a shame, as it will ensure they lose the next general election. Mind you, if by some miracle labour did win the next election, it is good to know that not every member/activist is completely barking.
Ayn Rand, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Hitchens, Raymond Carver, Haruki Murakami, Tony Blair, Tony Benn, John Steinbeck, Martin Amis, Franz Kafka, JD Salinger, George Orwell, P, Ethan/Joel Coen, Anton Chekhov, Lech Walesa, Leonard Cohen, Harold Wilson, Neil La Bute, Martin Luther King, John Stuart Mill, Simon Bolivar, Hugo Chavez, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, Che Guevara, Jack Kerouac, Russell Banks, John Cheever, Chung Yu-Jung, Kim Dae-Jung, Kevin Carter and Richard Dawkins.
This article smacks more of religious fanaticism than political realism it seems to me and no doubt Oliver would be honoured to carry James Purnell's attache case for him to a meeting of the Fabian Society and listen to the "great man's" pontification with rapt attention. Bless. I remember what it was to be young and green in the method of my means, convinced I knew all there was to know about everything when actually I knew very little about anything. Still, all things considered, this article did amuse me and make me smile although it wasn't supposed to and was obviously intended to be taken seriously.
Oliver did Lard Meddlesome put you up to this kite flying pap, it has his touch?
Most voters are now very aware you can hardly get a fag paper between Nu Labour and the Tories and surprisingly for you are looking elsewhere rather than going for more of the same old, same old Buggins turn politics.
The reality is that most voters are fed up with the nannyism of Nu Labour, its inane, excessive and inappropriate legislation, its corporate centrist power grabs, its policies increasing irrelevance to daily life, and so to your point: if I want Tory policies, I will vote Tory. If I want centre left policies I will vote SNP in Scotland and feel sorry for my friends in England who only have the option of three 'Tory lite parties' all trying to pretend they are 'hard on crime' to impress 'Middle England' but in reality have no core.
Because it won't increase tax revenues significantly but will make those who can work elsewhere look to leave and take teir skills with them?
Because it was nothing more than a political trap set for the Tories that had little merit and broke a manifesto promise?
Because it represents the streak in the Labour party that desires to steal as much as it can from the middle classes and you don't want them realising this?
A bit like Blair I think you have mistaken where you naturally should be.
I went away from the experience a Tory still, but a subtly different kind of Tory. Now not wanting to be horribly patronising to Oliver since I am only 10 or so years older than he. But I do suspect he could benefit from stepping back for a year or two and actively trying to evaluate everything before him. Especially as it seems clear that the party he has chosen simply doesn’t want him.
You're right on ID cards though, keeping them is completely inexplicable, someone's got some polaroids somewhere.
What a sweeping generalisation and falsehood. Some are, but a large majority of the unemployed and a substantial majority of those on incapacity benefit are too lazy to work given the generous alternatives not to.
Labour cannot even understand the problem, let alone the solution, and will henceforth be ejected from the undeserving position they currently hold governing this nation.
Bless you my friend.
I can only assume your one of these people that is smart enough to see what works in life, but have grown up being taught that Tories are evil and Socialists are kind loving people, so have developed an ambivalent political agenda.
1. I was New Labour when it was New Labour in 1997-2002 and I was happy to accomodate the Left and reach compromise as we did.
2. The people who are currently unemployed ARE unemployed due to the collapse of the financial institutions across the globe based upon a failed group of assumptions that came from the right. One such assumption was Margaret Thatcher;s assumption that rich, powerful individuals behave responsibly. I actually feel sorry for Thatcher (later adopted by Blair and Brown) for being let down by said individuals who are STILL letting us down today, which is somthing they share with the majority of corrupt MP's caught up in the expense scandal, who have no shame or decency or would have resigned thier seats immediatly in the National Interest.
3. When millions are unemployed it is not time to put pressure on people when your government may be seen by the public to have had involvement in the situation that lost these people thier jobs and businesses. Yes they need to brought back into work, but they need support and a sense the government will do all it can to help them get the skills they need to fill the vacencies. In a recession people down on thier luck need help not condemnation. They will just turn against you.
4. So now you are actually admitting to being "Tories with a heart" but you want to appeal beyond "idealists", so where is the heart?
5. You have only followed the Tory line because you are intellectually devoid, devoid of talent hence the Tories clearly turned you down initially, devoid of good economic policies that bring jobs for the long term, and devoid of idealism hence your political position.
6. Until I heard your arguments I was very cautious about Europe but you are turning me into an advocate. So you know you cannot win a Europen election and now want to pull away from it. If you can't cash in then ditch it regardless of it's history.
7. At least you know how to treat soldiers I agree. But how can you patch up things with the electorate, most people know someone who has been hit hard by the recession and Purnell's cynical Act is going to punish them...your just going to make people dislike you all the more, and the professional Tories will be laughing as they can avoid the blame for an unpopular Act they did not make. Ironically this weird assertion that Right Wing policies are helping the Labour Party is utter, utter garbage, take a look at the polls and the dates when you have launched this crazy legislation, it has not even won you a single election. It makes the Party look dishonest, and the MP's deceitful trators as well as expense ridden unethical fools who have clearly sold themselves and the Party out.
8. The "free market roots" just collapsed around your ears, markets will always need some regulation even if it is minimal to stop large corporations destroying themselves. They RELY on government to make the playing field as safe and level as possible to permit as much (not total) freedom as possible. How do you identify failings and errors if you cast aside idealism, what value system do you apply and use? This is politics you cannot assess policies without some form of ethic. The Tories (the properones, not people like you) DO have an idealism believe it or not, that makes them light years ahead of you because they actually stick to thier parties guns.
9. Scrapping the probation service? Heaven help us.
Please someone, I need a reality check here please tell me this article IS NOT representative of the Labour Party?
It’s good to have new people writing for LabourList, but I also found some of the references (‘lurching to the left’) a bit needlessly divisive and silly. And some of the things that have been attributed to the ‘left wing agenda’ or ‘Old Labour’ as, plainly and simply, inaccurate. Sorry. Interesting debate though and probably quite a good way to kick off a discussion.
We should have harnessed the public anger over expenses and used it as a basis for wide-ranging reforms to our democracy and democratic institutions. Such reforms could have reignited public support for the Labour party. Instead there were a lot of nice words and hollow apologies, now one fears the opportunity is lost.
And I don't agree with the argument in the post, or the headline, which I wrote.
But it's a valid viewpoint and Oliver is a hardworkigng member and activist.
My viewpoint and yours are no more or less valid than Oliver's.
However, I'm deeply disappointed that you have featured this article, which is entirely Tory in tone: they have enough platforms of their own. I think "Labour’s position as the party of the free market and enterprise; the Tories with a heart." crosses a line: I cannot think that the vast majority of "labour minded" people would for one second accept this description.
"The recession and expenses scandal have knocked Labour for six."
What has "knocked Labour for six" is poor policy decisions and hypocracy, the recession and the expenses scandal are the result, not the cause. Its irrelevant whether you term Labour as being Old or New, what needs to happen is good policy ideas that are actually carried through and the hypocracy of branding the Conservatives as corrupt and nasty whilst Labour ministers do some of the worst things imaginable within the confines of our current society. We may not have a government that kills its citizens or physically bullies them to keep control, but they mentally attack the people of this country with fear tactics.
Think about it logically if you want to reference to the past. When I was growing up I was less than 25 miles from numerous IRA attacks. Town centres were blown to bits, people were maimed and killed and there was a certain degree of fear because you couldn't identify a member of the IRA by sight. Did we have ID cards thrust on us? Where there massive databases on innocent people? Did we have laws put in place to take away civil liberties from the average person? The short answer is no, but according to modern Labour all these things will help towards the fight on terror. And the short answer to that is, no it won't.
What happened in July 2007 in London was aweful and horrendous, but what about Warrington March 1993? Canary Wharf February 1996? And Manchester June 1996? There are many more including mortar attacks on Downing Street, so did the Conservatives rush through legislation that had a punitive effect on the entire population? Where we greeted with anti-terror legislation that could be abused by every single council in the UK? Do you see what I'm getting at?
Which will make you immediately unpopular with the delusionists that think if Labour is more 'labour' that a fourth term is a racing certainty.
As someone who comes from Cardiff, I think it is actually very troubling that Alun, for all his strengths and weaknesses has employed someone who feels happy to criticise 'left wing politics' - not the hard/loony/old/bad left, but just that - those who subscribe to 'left wing politics' as a whole.
I have worked with people right across our movement and accept the place in the party of many of those on the ultra-'loyalist' wing of things like Labour Students, but you really do seem to be right out on a limb with many of your frankly quite dangerous ideas. I am not often shocked at how far removed from any kind of historic democratic socialist thinking that some in our party are, but in this case I am amazed you can even stomach organising for a party that even under Brown is clearly well to the left of your thinking.
Your criticism of the concept of rehabilitation of criminals goes far far far to the right of anything Blair ever suggested - 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' was all about linking and solving the societal influences (unemployment, social exclusion etc.) which lead to crime. You seem to reject all that in what I can only describe as quite a stringently conserative viewpoint. In all seriousness, I suggest you read some of Ian Duncan Smith's writing on this - it would probably be an improvement on your viewpoint, which has nothing to do with any conception of social democratic politics.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/notoBlair/
While your there, this is the current number 1...
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/
There is a sting in the tail - since although an honest reflection is required, this is impossible, since it would show that over 12 years Labour has thoroughly failed.
If you feel this way, why are you even Labour?
If Labour Leadership follows the advice above, the party will split. I'm beginning to think that might be for the best: nuLabour may see quite what a small and isolated group it actually is.
That said, I agree with much of the policy content of your article, albeit that the day the Party accepts that we are "The Tories with a Heart" is the day I hand in my card.